Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: Project area encompasses several KBAs
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:This is an area of high biodiversity significance of Cameroon, primarily for the species range-size rarity and proximity to key biodiversity areas.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: Based on irrecoverable carbon map
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:The average score of carbon density is well above 100 t/ha.s
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: No addressed
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:This is an IP NGO with a long track record, held and managed with strong and active IPLC governance systems.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: No
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:Information is non-existent, except for this sentence: “Baka communities are culturally and historically different from other Bantu communities and with which they share the same geographical territory and practice many material, ritual and symbolic exchanges.”
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: No discussion of threats in this EOI
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:It is clear this area is at high risk, including from existing palm oil concessions.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: Q 4 and 5 left blank
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:The legal and policy frameworks are actively promote the recogntion of IPLC governance, as evidenced by section 3.s
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: Q 4 and 5 left blank
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:Yes - the Memo of Understanding shows the active support. There are multiple examples of IPLC-led conservation in the area.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: Q 4 and 5 left blank
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:Yes - there are multiple IPLC-led conservation initiatives in the area. There are 8 IPLC initiatives in the Equator Prize database.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: No complementary activities were reported. RFUK has a mobile phone reporting system ForestLink to enable communities to report illegal activities and human rights abuses - this seems largely to replicate this work https://www.mappingforrights.org/forestlink/
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:This is not clear from the proposal.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: Basically this is a grievance reporting system
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:The list of proposal actions and the overall approach is well aligned, and follows a clear theory of change.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: Left blank
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:The actions focus on monitoring as a means of empowerment, and each step is clearly eloborated.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: Left blank
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:The objectives focus on monitoring, but do not address the root causes of forest loss.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: No idea how to reply to this
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:This is entirely feasible within the budget and timeline.
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:Very vague elaboration of co-financing.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:Although the size of the area is very large, and would warrant a very high score, the actuual transformational impact is not commensurate, hence a lower score.
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:The proposal does not include cultural or livelihood indicators.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:This is not well justified in the proposal.
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:Although there is much scope within the NBSAP and NDC, these are not clearly elaborated in the proposal.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:Poor definition of a gender mainstreaming strategy.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:The potential for monitoring as a transformative action is enormous, however the proposal did not make a strong case.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:Yes, this is an IP-led NGO.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:Yes, this is an IP-led NGO.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:There is a strong focus in IPLC partnerships, although this section could have been better elaborated in the proposal.
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:Although the applicate has not GEF experience, it has a solid track record of working with grants, and a large annual budget of 1 million USD. The skills and experiece appear to be sufficient to manage a large grant.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:They have managed multiple large grants, including greater than 200K USD, they have experience with diversified funding streams, and they conduct annual audits.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:NA
Evidence C:They did not answer this question, so one must presume no.